I am
writing to you today with regard to your Internet item, “Are you a Christian
Warmonger?” It is certainly an interesting piece, and perhaps one which can
provide a great insight into the relationship between Christianity and war. But
this potential can only be reached with a drastic editing of your list, as the
questions are rife with logical fallacies. With humility, I would like to
address each of these point-by-point.

Before
beginning, I will ensure that we are all on the same page by defining the term
“Warmonger.” In general, the term means “one who is eager for war” (Encarta
Dictionary). Though you do not overtly state a definition, it appears that you
would agree, based on the following two statements:

“…Christian warmongers are just as militant. They consider
this [Iraqi] war to be a Christian crusade against Islam and view the thousands
of dead Iraqi civilians as collateral damage.”…

“Other Christians are passive warmongers. …[they] cherish the thought of dead Iraqis, or ‘joke’ about
nuking Muslims, they excuse, dismiss, make apologies for, and defend the war…”

Now,
you are dangerously close here to creating a logical flaw upon which the entire
premise is based. You seem to be defining a Christian warmonger as any
Christian who supports the war on Iraq. Yet your list asks questions
about Iraq to determine if a
person is a warmonger; such a
statement is circulus in demonstrado
(circular reasoning)—it is essentially saying, “Only warmongers support the war
in Iraq, so if you support
the war in Iraq,
you must be a warmonger!”

I will
assume that this is not what you meant to say, and that you simply meant to
define a Christian warmonger as a Christian who cherishes the thought of any
war and is calloused to the “collateral damage” thereof. Such a statement is
not logically fallacious, and now we may move on to the list. My comments shall be in blue.

The
commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
(Exodus 20:13) never applies to killing in war.

Fallacies (2): Complex Question, False Dichotomy

(1)
Complex Question

The fallacy of complex questions is when an arguer poses a
question which includes something in its construction which is presumed true by
the question itself. One such example is the statement, “Have you stopped
beating your wife?” This statement presupposes something in its construction
(in this case, that you beat your wife) which has not been established. Of
course, Complex Questions are rarely as obvious as “Have you stopped beating
your wife?”; more often, they are similar to your
first question here. The question above presupposes that the Scripture, “Thou shalt not kill,” refers to the taking of any life—a fact
which has not yet been established. In fact, the literal Hebrew translation of
the word for “kill” (ratsach)
is “to murder,” and is otherwise used in the Bible only in phrases which refer
to taking lives without just cause. For generations, Hebrews
have interpreted that passage as non-contradictory to God’s required
destruction of evil cultures in battle. For example, no Hebrew believes that
David’s slaying of Goliath, blessed by God, was a violation of the commandment
in Exodus 20:13.

Whether this verse should apply to the taking of any life,
or only to justified taking of life has yet to be established. Your question is
assuming that you have already established it to mean “the taking of any life.”

(2)
False Dichotomy

Similarly, you make the logical flaw of setting up a false
dichotomy with this question. By asking if the commandment “never” applies, you
are stating that there are only two positions regarding this verse: if you
answer “True” then you must claim that there are never unjustified killings in war; if answering “False” then you are
claiming that there are never justified
killings in war. Since you have failed to establish the meaning of the phrase
“Thou shalt not kill,” it is fallacious to assume
that these are the only two positions available. What if someone
were to claim, “It is neither true nor false. To kill in self-defense or
in combat of evil is not a violation of Exodus 20:13, and to kill for any other
reason (e.g., the My Lai Massacre) is a violation of the commandment.
Thus, the verse sometimes applies and sometimes doesn’t.” This is a perfectly validresponse; in
this case, you are assuming a dichotomy exists, when in fact the answer
“sometimes” is logically defensible.

We
should follow President Bush’s leadership because he is a Christian.

Fallacy: Non Sequitur

A non sequitur (“it does not follow”) fallacy is when an
argument’s conclusion does not strictly follow from its premises. Here, if
someone answers “True”, you give them 1 point—a move toward ‘Christian
warmonger.’ But nowhere have you demonstrated a case for why belief in
submission to authority is equivalent with warmongering. One could quite
presumably be horrified by war and yet still believe that they have a
responsibility to submit to authority (Christian, secular, or otherwise). So it
does not follow from the question that a response of “True” is evidence of
warmongering.

Torturing
Iraqi prisoners to obtain information is okay if it saves the life of one
American.

Fallacy: Non Sequitur

This is the same fallacy made in question number two:
namely, that your conclusion (“that is a warmonger response”) does not follow
from the acceptance of the statement above. Again, both you and the dictionary
define warmongering as an enthusiasm for war, whereas you have not demonstrated
that it acceptance of question three necessarily shows eagerness or enthusiasm.
Presumably, one could state that they believe it is for the “greater good” to
torture if it saves lives, but it breaks their hearts to do so (a necessary
evil, you might say). Whether they are morally correct or not is irrelevant—it is still a logically consistent answer. And
thus, you are making a non-sequitur error when you automatically conclude that
any “True” answer to the above question is necessarily an example of
warmongering.

The
command to "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the
Lord’s sake" (1 Peter 2:13) means that we should kill foreigners in
their country if the government says to do so.

Fallacy: Non Sequitur

See # 2-3. Simply because a person agrees with the above
statement does not indicate that they are a warmonger, or eager for wartime
activities. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

U.S. intervention in the Middle East is
necessary to protect Israel
from the Arabs.

Fallacy: Red Herring

This
is called a “red herring” fallacy—the inclusion of an argument irrelevant to
the basic point. Whether a person believes in the necessity of U.S. intervention for protection of Israel is
completely irrelevant to determination of a Christian warmonger mindset. One
need not be a Christian to believe that the U.S.
should protect Israel, and
one need not be a warmonger to believe that the U.S. should use its power to defend
democratic states against dictatorships. So certainly, this question is
irrelevant to determining if you are a “Christian warmonger”, as it could also
be answered “True” by Jewish nationals, atheist Democrats, Republican doves,
etc. It simply provides no information whatsoever about the responder’s
Christianity or warmongering.

Muslim
civilians killed by the U.S.
military in Iraq and Afghanistan
are just collateral damage.

No Fallacy.

This is a fair question, although it is dangerously close to
being an argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity).

A
preemptive war against Iraq
is nothing to be concerned about because the Bible says there is "a
time of war" (Ecclesiastes 3:8).

Fallacy: Straw Man.

This is a straw man fallacy, whereby you set up an unfairly
simplistic opponent simply to provide easy attack. Few Christians who support
the war in Iraq
do so for the sole purpose that Ecclesiastes says there is a “time of war.” To
do so would be a logical flaw on their fault—Ecclesiastes never mentions Iraq or 2005 or Hussein or the War on Terror, so
one cannot assume that the verse indicates that the “time of war” is now and
against Iraq.
And, for that reason, I have never heard a Christian claim this as their
argument. Some may use it as proof that God is not opposed to war at certain
times if the need is great, but no one argues in defense of the war solely based on this verse. Thus, it is
an unfairly simplistic opponent which you have set up here to attack.

It is
okay to kill Muslims in Iraq
because the terrorists who kill Jews are Muslims.

No Fallacy.

This is, I think, the first completely fair question. One
might rightly assume that if a person answers “True”—that it is okay to
eliminate members of one religion purely because that religion has done evil
against the Jews—is eager for war.

Since
the Bible says that "the powers that be are ordained of God"
(Romans 13:1), we should always obey the government when it comes to war.

Fallacies (2): Straw Man, Non Sequitur.

This is simple another way of stating Questions 4 and 7,
which have already been answered. It is a non sequitur to conclude that a
person is eager for war simply because they believe in submission to the government,
and it is a straw man to imply that if a Christian believes in submission to
the government they will agree with any governmental decision regarding war.

U.S. wars
and interventions abroad are ultimately a good thing because they pave the
way for the spread of the gospel.

No Fallacy.

This is a fair question. Congrats—3/10 completely free from
fallacy!

The
command to "obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1) means that it is not
immoral to drop bombs on foreign countries if the government says it
should be done.

Fallacies (3): Straw Man, Non Sequitur, Appeal to Pity.

This is virtually the same question as Question 9, so I
wonder why you felt the need to ask it again. It has the same two errors as # 9
had. In addition, you add an appeal to pity, by referring to “war” as the more
emotionally-loaded “drop bombs on foreign countries.”

The
U.S.
should take vengeance on Muslims because of the September 11th
attacks.

No Fallacy.

This is a fair question, as long as you areclear about it. It is not necessarily
warmongering to believe that the U.S. should take vengeance on some specific Muslims—i.e., the hijackers—due to the September 11th attacks. It is
warmongering to take vengeance on allor unrelated Muslims, which I believe
is what you are referring to here. It should probably be reworded as, “The U.S.
should take vengeance on all Muslims because of the September 11th
attacks,” but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

A
perpetual war against the Muslim world in order to fight terrorism is just
because "The LORD is a man of war" (Exodus 15:3).

Fallacy: Straw Man.

This one isn’t even close to a fair question. Firstly, few
Christians support war solely based on the reading of Exodus 15:3, so it is an
overly simplistic argument when applied to any war. But you take a Straw Man
argument to a new level by stating that Christians interpret this verse—and
this verse alone, with no other
biblical, sociopolitical, or theological views—as justification for “a perpetual
war against the Muslim world.” In your introduction you state how
common Christian warmongering is: find me a video clip of a moderately
intelligent Christian saying, “Based on my reading of Exodus 15:3, I think we
should go to war against all Muslims forever.” That is an
transparent straw man argument.

Christians
can wholeheartedly participate in their government’s wars since God
commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to go to war.

No Fallacy.

This one is fair—in fact, it is the perfect question for
what you are asking. Some people would interpret it that way (so it isn’t a
straw man), you do not appeal to pity, and you say “Christians can wholeheartedly
participate…” (avoiding a non sequitur). The way you have
worded the question makes it impossible for someone to answer that they hesitatingly participate—you are asking
if they can participate without facing moral dilemmas. A very
well-stated question.

Christians
can proudly serve in the military in any capacity.

Fallacies (2): Non Sequitur, Sweeping Generalization

You follow up your best question with maybe your worst
question.

(1) Non
Sequitur

The conclusion here does not follow from its statement.
Because someone believes that a Christian could proudly serve in the military in
any capacity, you conclude they are a warmonger? What about the pacifist
Christian who nonetheless becomes a Chaplain, risking his life in order to try
and preach to those he disagrees with? What about the pacifist Christian doctor
who, when America is being invaded by some outside force, is willing to risk
his life to save dying patients? What about the Christian who hates even the
sight of blood, but is proud to be a part of what America stands for—and joins the
military as an accountant? Maybe you could make this argument when referring to
those who take their enemies’ lives, but certainly even you must admit that
there is a logical flaw in this statement: it does not follow that anyone who
serves proudly in any capacity in the military is necessarily a warmonger.

(2)
Sweeping Generalization

In addition, by classifying all who serve proudly in any capacity as warmongers is a dictosimpliciter—a
sweeping generalization error. It is akin to claiming, “Women are not as strong
as men, and thus cannot win in a fight against a man.” It is true that on the average women are less strong
than men, but the conclusion only holds if all
women are weaker than all men.
Certainly, some women are stronger than some men. Likewise, you may be correct
that there are many Christian warmongers who proudly serve in the military in
some capacity. You may even be right (though I disagree, and it is an opinion)
that the majority of Christians in the military are warmongers. But it is a
logical fallacy to claim your conclusion: that proud service “in any capacity”
is equivalent to warmongering.

Christians
can proudly serve in the CIA in any capacity.

Fallacies (3): Non Sequitur, Sweeping Generalization, Red
Herring

As this is almost identical to question 15, I refer you
there to see the first two fallacies you make. The third is an addition of a
Red Herring—the CIA. The Christian’s service in the CIA in any capacity is irrelevant to the discussion, as you have not
demonstrated in any way that service in the CIA is at all connected to a desire
to war.

The
command to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) does not apply
to refusing to kill for the state in a war.

Fallacies (2): Straw Man, Non Sequitur.

A restatement of Questions 4, 7, 9, 11,
and 13. Clearly you feel it is
important, but it is full of the same logical flaws as its predecessors. Why
make this a 20-question quiz, if you are just going to add in the same argument
5 times? Why not just make it a 15-question quiz?

(Interestingly, you yourself are showing that this is a
Straw Man argument. These five questions use 5 different scriptures to try and
support war and/or the government, showing that there are at least 5 scriptures
which a Christian could use for such an argument. Yet in each question, you
include only 1 scripture—clearly showing that even you realize that there is
more scriptural evidence available than you are allowing in any question. You
aren’t only setting up straw men—you know
that you’re setting up straw men.)

God
approves of the war in Iraq
because Islam is a false religion.

Fallacies (2): Red Herring, Non Sequitur

(1) Red
Herring

This is a completely irrelevant point. Let’s say that God
does approve—or at least, that the reader believes He approves, and writes
“True”. Does that have anything whatsoever to do with whether the reader is a warmonger? He may think God
approves and hate that fact. So it is
a red herring—the question is irrelevant to the debate. A True or False answer
gives only information regarding God or God’s view toward war—not the person doing the answering.

(2) Non
Sequitur

Along the same lines, just because someone believes that God
approves of the war does not mean that the person is eager for the war. It does
not follow from the question above that the person is a warmonger.

Muslims
in the Middle East hate Americans because
of their Christianity, their freedoms, and their democratic values.

Fallacies (2): Red Herring, Non Sequitur

The flaws here are identical to Question 18. This is a
fact—either true or false. Whether Muslims hate Americans—or whether the reader
thinks they do—is irrelevant to the determination of whether the reader is a
warmonger (Red Herring). For the same reason, it does not follow that an answer
of true implies a warmongering spirit (non sequitur).

Christians
in Iraq
are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Fallacies (2): Red Herring, Non Sequitur

The flaws here are identical to Questions 18-19. Whether
Christians in Iraq
are better off—or whether the reader thinks they are—is irrelevant to the
determination of whether the reader is a warmonger (Red Herring). For the same
reason, it does not follow that an answer of true implies a warmongering spirit
(non sequitur).

Summary
Statistics

Questions:
20

Non-Fallacious
Questions: 5 (25%)

Logical
Fallacies: at least 26

Non
Sequiturs: 11

Red
Herrings: 5

Straw
Man Arguments: 5

Sweeping
Generalizations: 2

Appeals
to Pity: 1

Complex
Questions: 1

False
Dichotomies: 1

In
conclusion, though the debate on the role of Christians in warfare is an
intriguing one which should certainly be addressed by all Christians, your quiz
has added nothing substantive to the debate. In fact, quite the opposite: it is
a logically fallacious quiz which appears to be deliberately designed to
mislead those taking it into agreeing with your position—not out of genuine
moral concern and logical reasoning, but rather out of trickery.